Grasp · Comprehension Index Scan Report

Who still understands psf/requests?

Computed from git metadata only; no source code contents were read.
touch-weighted · 3-year history window · last commit 41d ago · scores are comparable only against same-mode scans

Grasp Score

touch-weighted living knowledge across the repo

Active humans

2 / 63

contributors active in last 90 days vs. all-time

AI-attributed minimum

≥ 0.4%

hard evidence only. Just 29% of commits here carry any attribution signal, so the real share is higher

Inactive share

48.1%

work by authors with no commit in the window; silence, not proof of departure

Composition

44/20/31/5%

source / tests / docs / config share of scored work

Living, source only

56%

the headline recomputed over hand-written source alone

Score stability

volatile

90-day-cliff variant reads 0%–66% across 60/90/180-day activity windows; read the width before the middle value

Dark-code ranking

Modules ranked by comprehension risk: the unknown share, amplified by ongoing change and thin ownership. The green meter is living knowledge.

Module	Risk	Living knowledge	AI-attr.	Inactive	Bus	Heat/180d
docs	MED 51	38%	0%	57%	1	15
tests	LOW 44	48%	0%	69%	1	18
(root)	LOW 44	51%	0%	40%	1	32
requests	LOW 43	43%	0%	44%	1	0
.github	LOW 38	55%	0%	41%	1	22
src	LOW 35	65%	1%	34%	1	82

One commit touched 64% of every file changed in this window. Wide, shallow commits, a formatter run or a license-header pass, add weight for their author across the whole surface while changing little. Worth looking at what that commit was before crediting the score to its author.

Public-repo caveat: "departed" includes drive-by contributors, overstating attrition relative to a company repo with a real roster. Engagement is a proxy for comprehension. Treat it as a potential indicator rather than a diagnosis.